| Re: train protection systems [message #1244 is a reply to message #1240] |
Mon, 09 February 2015 10:24   |
Christian Rahmig
Messages: 151
Registered: January 2011
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dear Joerg,
dear everyone,
Am 07.01.2015 um 08:45 schrieb Joerg von Lingen:
> Hi all,
>
> w.r.t. the harmonisation of and semantic rules for the train protection systems
> I found one rule which cannot be formally proofed:
> The values of "trainProtectionMedium" and "trainProtectionMonitoring" shall be
> consistent with "type" in <nationalSystem>.
>
> As this seems to be a fixed 1:1 relation I would propose to extend the
> accompanied file TrainProtectionSystems.xml by this information to allow a
> formal check.
that's indeed a good idea. If I understood you correctly, you propose to
extend the current structure in TrainProtectionSystems.xml to something
like this:
<trainProtectionSystems ...>
<trainProtectionSystemsAtTrack>
<name />
<validFor />
<medium />
<monitoring />
</trainProtectionSystemsAtTrack>
<trainProtectionSystemsOnVehicle>
<!-- [...] -->
</trainProtectionSystemsOnVehicle>
</trainProtectionSystems>
<medium> defines the physical medium of the train protection system and
shall provide a value of the current enumeration tTrainProtectionMedium
(cable, inductive, radio, mechanical, optical...).
<monitoring> defines the coverage of a train protection system and
refers to the values of the enumeration tTrainProtectionMonitoring
(intermittent, continuous).
Any comments on this proposal are very welcome...
Best regards
--
Christian Rahmig
railML.infrastructure coordinator
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Login
Home
